Saturday, December 26, 2009

Loveability And Ability Do Not Equate

Christmas is over. Just like that. After months and months of build up, the day arrives and passes and it's done. People are now out in droves returning unwanted gifts. So much for peace and love. Merry Christmas.

And so too, life goes on. The good and the bad. My cynical self is back. The sleigh bell (note Polar Express) Hub gave me is perched on my computer where I can jingle it in time of need. It will be often used and I will always hear it.

My cynical side surfaced when I read Peggy Noonan's column in this morning's Wall Street Journal. He Just Does What He Thinks Is Right. Had Obama himself written it I'd have thought it the height of ego. What he thinks is right. No matter what part wisdom and the advice emanating from it might be. But it came from a headline writer about the saccharine blathering of Ms. Noonan.

She speaks of the 'love' some still hold for him and how importantly embracing it is when so many are turning against him. I have a feeling that need for 'love' and those who give it blindly will be his downfall. I have a feeling it is part of the reason why he is slow to make decisions and when he does they are not as well studied as he'd like us to believe. One cannot risk the 'love'.

Personally, I don't care to 'love' my President. I want to believe in his abilities. I want to respect him. He has to earn it. It is more than being able to deliver a good speech that is set before him on teleprompters.

That he may be a great guy, is personable and warmer in person than his image indicates is great. So are a lot of people. That does not earn my love. I loved my dog. I love my husband. I love my family. I feel warm and happy and safe and loved in return when in their company. You see there has to be that personal connection. Without this it is not 'love'; it's an illusion. People who crave love tend to surround themselves with those who offer it willingly. That contrivance makes it meaningless except for the ego.

Where has he let me down? Other than the long, agonizing time it took for him to decide to send too few troops to Afghanistan, the most obvious shortfall is his blanket approval of health care which leads me to believe he knows not what all is in the two bills. The importance being that they exist. Not their content.

As importantly is what he said to the world in his Peace Prize speech.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.
To date America has been a voice for absolutely nothing. Most vividly the deafening silence supporting the protesters of Iran's oppressive regime. Rhetoric. Actually, as Hillary said during the campaign, "words, nothing but words." Where ever the heck she is!

Without the backing up of words they are meaningless. They seem contrived. Everything is beginning to look like little more than slick orchestrations. Right down to the idea that the Lincoln Bedroom is no longer used for White House guests because the Emancipation Proclamation was signed there.

That is cynicism at it's height. If there is a bright side, I would suppose it's that there is no 'love' lost.

4 comments:

Linda said...

I'm still trying to figure out your cynicism. I've forgotten how many years you've been blogging because I've only know you for the last couple of years.

Am I to understand you supported President Bush during his time in office? That you preferred the way he made decisions and thought he knew a lot more than President Obama? Or were you also cynnical about him?

Is it just your way of viewing Washington, through the lense of cynicism? Is it President Obama the person, or is it government in general, as well as the office of president, no matter who holds it? Just curious.

Grammyof13 said...

I'll say it one more time this year. You are good! Love your candor and honesty. You need to be a newspaper columnist.

Dogwalk said...

Thanks Grammy. Who knows. Maybe someone will 'discover 'me! Lol.

Dogwalk said...

Linda, I answered similar questions from Margie awhile back. It didn't start out to be President Obama the person, but the more I see how into himself he is that's beginning to change. I was no easier on the Bush administration. I think you've hit it just about right when observing that I view not just Washington, but politics as a whole through the lense of cynicism.

I've been disappointed so many times I can no longer be optimistically "for" someone on first impression. It now has to be earned and the more that is kept from us, like Obama's college transcripts, the less likely it is. Too often I've not looked deeply enough.

So. I'm an equal opportunity critic.